What makes you think an independent Palestinian state would be safer for everyone?

The Hamas rulers of Gaza consider indiscriminate murder of civilians an acceptable means of policy. They were democratically elected so they were given a popular mandate to carry on that policy. How does that make the world safer?

In the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange, Mr. Abbas met with many of the Arabs released. Despite the fact many of these released prisoners had taken part in barbaric terrorist attacks targeting innocent civilians, Mr. Abbas called them heroes. Again, Mr. Abbas was democratically elected. The Palestinian electorate is voting into power leaders that consider murder acceptable and extol those who commit such murder as heroes.

This brings me back to the original question I asked you. How would an independent Palestinian state make the world safer considering the leaders who are democratically elected have no problem with indiscriminate murder?

"The Palestinian electorate is voting into power leaders that consider murder acceptable and extol those who commit such murder as heroes."

Have you forgotten how Israel was founded by Jewish terrorists determined to destroy or drive out the British? Google the names Lehi, aka The Stern Gang, Irgun, Hagganah, and look at the history of the founders of the state of Israel, described by the UN Security Council as, "a criminal group of terrorists," who were responsible for assassinations, bombings, and everything al-Qaeda is condemned for today. Note how these same terrorists became prominent Israeli politicians, some of whom are still active.

To be fair, the US and quite a few other modern nations were founded by "terrorists determined to destroy or drive out the British". We should judge countries based on their current leadership, not their past. Unless of course we consider the Belgians to be sadistic mass-murders and the Iranians to be shockingly liberal.

All the pre-State Jewish Groups you talk of ,fought against the British Mandatory military forces and armed Arab/Muslim groups .
The King David Hotel attack was against the Mandatory military command structure which was a legitimate military target .
Deir Yassin village was attacked as it was being used by Arab/Muslim irregular troops as an ambush point to try and starve Jewish Jerusalem of food supplies , and as such was a legitimate military target .
Please tell which other targets were civilian targets .
Terrorism is the purposeful targeting of civilians to terrorize them .
The Jewish Freedom Fighters targeted military and irregular armed
units fielded by Arab/Muslims groups such as the one led by Mufti of Jerusalem who spent the Second World War as a GUEST AND ALLY OF HITLER

The collation between "freedom fighters" and "terrorists" is a sad outgrowth of 9/11 that we all should NOT allow to continue. There is a real distinct and legal difference between the two
The Zionist perpetrators of Deir Yassin massacre are TERRORISTS whereas the Arab combattants at Bab Il Wad battle are "freedom fighters"
To be a :freedom fighter" one has to be combatting a declared enemy of undouted vileness for persuing or preaching a vile cause and/or defending stolen property and upholding anti human doctrine such as Zionism/Israel for its aggressive colonization of Palestine and its adoption of racism.

Israel is the outgrowth of a successful Jewish/Zionist colonialist conquest of Palestine.It came into being throuh the DISLOCATION DISPOSSESSION DISFRANCHISEMENT and SUBJUGATION of the indigenous Palestinian people from and in his homeland THEN supplanting them with ALIENS screened and approved according to the strict racial/racist criterion of being JEWISH.

I find it hard to sympathize with "freedom fighters" who deliberately calculate and plan operations meant to maim women and children well away from any conflict zone. Israel has committed its share of crimes and should not be so easily forgiven, but the Islamist forces in opposition to the Israelis are far worse in their intent and execution.

In case you haven't noticed, the most successful freedom movements in history were carried out by non-violent pseudo-"saints" in defiance to brutal authorities. Gandhi, Mandela, and King did not succeed because they led radical religious guerrilla fighters in suicide attacks, they succeeded because they took the high road and won the admiration and respect of their oppressors and of the world.

There is a sizable liberal Israeli population that wants peace, but every time a rocket lands in an Israeli's living room those liberals become more and more marginalized. And for some reason, too many Arabs are either too dumb or too blind to realize this. All it takes is a true rejection of violence and "jihad", a rejection of sectarian Islamist groups, and a true unified call for peace -- and sooner than you would every imagine, the Israeli and American left, the European Union, and the world as a whole would put tremendous pressure on the Israelis.

Have you forgotten what would have happened to the Jews in Israel had they not won a nation for themselves?

Al Qaeda is condemned, by the way, for attacking innocent Americans working in the world trade center or flying on airplanes or working it the Pentagon. The Jews were fighting for their lives and the lives of their countrymen, many of whom arrived in the area not because they were ideologically driven, like Al Qaeda, but rather survival driven, after escaping persecution, beatings, starvation, gassing, experiments, cruelty, slave labor, disease, concentration camps leading to death. . .

Israel only "conquered" "Palestine" after having been attacked by the surrounding Arab armies. It came into being after the approval by the UN of the partiiton plan, just like the partition plan in India and Pakistan which occurred at the same time. To some extent both sides were dislocated, but the plan was designed to give territory where most of the residents were already living. Keep in mind that 20 percent of Israeli CITIZENRY today is Arab because they remained after the partition.
The disfranchisement and subjugation only happened after repeated wars, each and every one begun and/or instigated by the Arabs, and further losses of land as a result of those wars, resulting in occupation.
Had the Arabs accepted the partition plan and built their nation (there was no extant nation in the lands partitioned, contrary to their narrative) as the Israelis had done, there might be peace today, although it would still have troubled Islamists to have any Infidel living on any lands Islamic armies once conquered. Look out, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Hungary, etc. should Palestine fall.

...it´s funny to think that most jewish-americans supported Obama this last election. Funny until you realise they really don´t care about Israel. Most of them have voted and vote now democratic following their atavic memories of not being accepted into country clubs and other anglo associations just because they were jewish.

More likely they see Israel as better off with stable relations with the tribes that surround it. That will only come with a peace deal. I'm not sure the Palestinians are ready to make such a deal but when they are, if Israel doesn't attempt to seal the deal they will be acting against their own long term interests.

Not to mention, Israel is a rather right-wing, theocratically-slanted country. American Jews and Israeli Jews are from the same post-WWII stock, but there is a key difference: Israeli Jews went to a rough new world and found themselves in a series of wars while American Jews found themselves the victims of discrimination for years before America liberalized its social attitudes. So naturally, Israeli Jews have become a lot more hawkish and receptive to the right while their American counterparts have solidly thrown their support behind the more tolerant of the two parties.

History has made the American Jewry liberal, and they have little in common with Israel. Luckily for Israel though, they have less in common with the extreme-right Islamists running most of Israel's geopolitical foes.

That's true, but nonetheless the Israeli right is more extreme and for powerful than its counterparts in virtually every western country including the US, which is rather conservative itself.

Of course, Israel looks like a hippie commune compared to virtually every Islamic country in the region, so it remains the preferred ally of the west, but it's hard to pretend Israelis as a whole are anything like their Jewish brethren in the US and Europe.

I don't know on which scale you judge Israeli right as more extreme than in US or Europe - it certainly doesn't look like this to me. (This is perhaps because I also use sources other than the Economist, which frankly publishes a lot of outright lies.)

It is true that Israeli left has been in disarray - till recently they were stuck in the past, peddling for 20 years the ideas about "peace" that were outdated and unworkable, while ignoring any other problems that Israel faces (economics, social problems). They are being revived now, since under Netanyahu Israel has had four peaceful(!) years and everyone (including the Palestinians) had time to begin worrying about their everyday lives.

The scale I use is simply the fact that far-right parties have government representation in ways they don't in any other country I can think of other than Greece (and Islamic ones obviously). It could be that the Israeli population itself is no more extreme than the British population, but the electoral system has flaws in that outrageous right-wingers can find themselves in positions of power (and as a result, in ruling coalitions) whereas in the UK, the BNP is just an unelected joke of a party.

In the US of course, the two party system makes it nearly impossible for truly far-right people to come to power. Instead, we see ignorant fools like Akin and Palin, but not neo-fascists or open racists.

Let me first state that I don't think that far right is any worse then far left: fascist and communist philosophies are similar in that they put the rights of a society/nation above those of an individual/minority and seek to abolish democracy. For example, in France they have suport of one third of the population (18% voted for LePen and 11% for the communist block).

I have issues with some Israeli right-wing parties due to their extreme religiosity - in this sense they are similar to the evangelicals in the US. However, these parties are concerned mainly with the social welfare for their constituents.

Netanyahu's block is neither particularly religious, nor extreme. It is as center-right as a civilized center-right party should be.

Finally, Lieberman is often called a "fascist" by the "liberal" media. He is not a very sympathetic figure, but despite his clownish behavior, he is neither too extreme (he supports two-state solution), nor particularly religious (his main constituency is Russian immigrants, who have many problems with the religion.) Ironically, he promotes many social policies that in other countries are the domain of the left, intended to equalize the religious and the Arab comminities with the mainstream Israelis.

Poor Sheldon, all his bets seem to be going South. Quite a shame for a casino Mogul. Let's hope his favorite one, the Israeli regime and the settler project go the same way. If Obama finally grows a pair (or just gets out of the way) we might still see it in the next four years. Don't get your hopes high, though!

for too long Israel used its pivot role in the cold war power struggle to obtain an endless list of concessions from US. To this date, Rethoric is still rampant and calling each other terrorist and other names is as useful as watching grass growing.
Both parties should recognize this violent conflict can only end when responsible and peaceful leaders are in charge: Bibi does not fit the spec.

Your last statement that both parties "should recognize this violent conflict can only end when responsible and peaceful leaders are in charge" is naive. Hamas is an extremist party. It's charter is extremist and against peace or compromise. It is a religious based political document that calls for total victory over Israel; not one word has been changed since it was written in '88. If you want to understand why your last sentence is just so many words, read their Charter.

Following are excerpts from a show featuring Egyptian Salafi Sheikh Murgan Salem, which aired on Dream 2 TV, on November 10 and 13, 2012.

Murgan Salem: They must pay the jizya poll tax. They cannot be exempted.

TV host Wael Al-Abrashi: You mean the Christians...?

Murgan Salem: I'll tell you, just bear with me. Yes, this should be one of the sources of income of the state. The Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians are welcome to live in the Abode of Islam, as long as they pay the jizya poll tax, and abide by the terms set by the Emir of the Believers, who rules the country.

Wael Al-Abrashi: What if they serve in the military?

Murgan Salem: They don’t need to. We will defend them. We will defend them.

[...]

Wael Al-Abrashi: When you say that you will destroy the statues, the Sphinx, and the pyramids, just like you destroyed the Buddha statues in Afghanistan – isn't this a cause for fear?

Murgan Salem: What is there to be afraid of?

Journalist Nabil Sharaf al-Din: This is a universal heritage. It doesn't belong only to you.

Murgan Salem: Let me ask you a question: Why are you afraid of shattering these idols? Do you worship these idols?

Nabil Sharaf al-Din: No sir, but this is a universal heritage that must be respected.

[...]

Wael Al-Abrashi: If you were in power, you would destroy the Sphinx, the pyramids, and all the Pharonic statues and antiquities?

Murgan Salem: All pagan statues and monuments – whether they are worshipped now or there is fear that they will be worshipped again, even if by a single person in the world – must be destroyed by us or others.

[...]

Wael Al-Abrashi: You met Osama Bin Laden in [Afghanistan]. You worked with him and fought with him.

Murgan Salem: First of all, I won't allow anyone to say "Osama Bin Laden" without the title "Sheikh".

Wael Al-Abrashi: Fine, Sheikh Osama Bin Laden. That's your call.

Murgan Salem: Sheikh Bin Laden is one of the greatest leaders of the Muslims to this day. I consider Sheikh Osama Bin Laden to be greater than Saladin. Saladin had supporters in his day...

Wael Al-Abrashi: Sheikh Morgan, don't get me worked up...

Murgan Salem: Okay, I won't. Let me explain. When Saladin wanted to liberate the Islamic world and expel the Tatars, there were emirates and armies that, although they were weak, supported him. Bin Laden had no supporters. Everybody was against him.

Wael Al-Abrashi: And you consider the killing of innocent women and children to be a glorious deed?

Murgan Salem: Sheikh Osama Bin Laden did not kill a single innocent woman or child who was a Muslim. Who says Sheik Osama killed innocent people? Where exactly?

[...]

This [Buddha] statue was worshipped by over 800 million people in the world – in the Koreas, Japan, Burma, Thailand, part of the Philippines, much of China, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. They are all Buddhists, who worship Buddha, a god other than Allah. This statue was worshipped rather than Allah. Its destruction was not an act of destroying a universal heritage. We have no respect for idols that are worshipped instead of Allah.

[...]

If I were president of Egypt, I would have destroyed those idols, whether worshipped or not. This is the law of the Prophet Muhammad.

[...]

Three ministries must be abolished. The Ministry of Tourism is the first one. This ministry is based on prostitution and depravity...

Wael Al-Abrashi: Sheikh Murgan, it seems that you want to close the country, and turn it into darkness. No tourist would come here. Do you want to destroy this country's economy?

Murgan Salem: I want to purify the economy.

[...]

Anyone who thinks what I am saying is an exaggeration...

Wael Al-Abrashi: You want to destroy the pyramids and the Sphinx. Can there be anything more exaggerated than that?

Murgan Salem: This exaggeration is in keeping with the shari'a...

Wael Al-Abrashi: What more would you like to destroy? Would you fill up the Nile with earth? Are we to wake up tomorrow morning and hear a fatwa about filling up the Nile?

It may be naive, and am happy to hear naive statements all the time from people like Dalai Lama, as I personally feel they serve a purpose.

Still, naivity aside, Hamas is extremist and should be isolated: clear. But it Should be isolated from the inside, from more moderate Palestinians that have the support of the external world to win reason and isolate their own extremist "brothers".

Because if you have Israeli forces to squash Hamas, then the rest of the Palestinians are also attacked, the rest of the Arab countries also feel attacked...just my two cents from very far away

It may be naive, and am happy to hear naive statements all the time from people like Dalai Lama, as I personally feel they serve a purpose.

Still, naivity aside, Hamas is extremist and should be isolated: clear. But it Should be isolated from the inside, from more moderate Palestinians that have the support of the external world to win reason and isolate their own extremist "brothers".

Because if you have Israeli forces to squash Hamas, then the rest of the Palestinians are also attacked, the rest of the Arab countries also feel attacked...just my two cents from very far away

Netanyahu represents strength and the willingness to go to war to defend Israel after she has been attacked. Those who seek to denigrate him clearly and transparently promote the interests of Israeli enemies.

Now everbody who crizises not even Israel but only Netanyahu is also a closet fascist who wants to destroy Israel?

This ridiculos black and white thinking will only isolate Israel further.

As shocking as it may seem, there are those who on one hand recognise Israel's right for self defense, but on the other hand oppose most policies of Israel's hawks, like extending settlements and disregarding the priciple of proportionality with respect to military action.

"Messrs Obama and Netanyahu were at odds virtually throughout the president’s first term. Their relations were often sour."

This sentence is true, but it implies that there was something wrong in the actual state to state cooperation or government links during Obama's presidency. Which there wasn't. The US and Israel had "unprecedented" levels of good cooperation during the Obama years according to the Israelis.

”The US and Israel had "unprecedented" levels of good cooperation during the Obama years according to the Israelis.”
Of course they would: Osama Bin Laden had been their common enemy, and they must have been working very well together to have finally nailed the ba*d...

As viscerally satisfying as that might be I don't see it happening. Obama has far more things on his plate to keep him plenty busy than to expend political capital on vanquishing Netanyahu. Maybe in a few years when he's a lame duck but certainly not now.

Obama has bigger problems right now than teaching lessons. He has a lot to explain for many foreign policy mis-steps. Observers might notice that since he signalled to the Middle East the shift in American willingness to support the relatively pro western status quo, the middle has not held. Syria is in turmoil, Egypt has fallen, Jordanians are now uprising; Libyans will not be able to prevent Al Quada from taking over, Iran and Iraq are resurgent as Afghanistan will soon be--all because of an America signalling a new policy of willingness to bend over backwards for Islamists, fully misunderstanding that the favor will not be returned. The goal of Islamists is to destroy the Unbelievers.

I find it funny how immediately after Obama won, several top Israeli officials released statements that essentially consisted of nothing but absurd levels of praise for Obama. They didn't just say he was good for Israel; they made him up to be the next reincarnation of Moses.

It's clear that many in the Israeli government are worried because Netanyahu foolishly placed his support behind the losing candidate. Even more so, Obama took some 70%+ of the American Jewish vote even after Netanyahu's pseudo-endorsement of Romney, which does not bode well for the current Israeli regime.

It seems to me that Obama could extract immediate revenge on his Israeli foe rather easily and push Netanyahu out of politics for some time. After all, Israel is the client in the client state relationship, and falling out of the boss's favor is possibly the most disastrous thing any Israeli PM could do.

Why is this bunch of Zionist extremists so important to us? Is this a racial and religious thing? Kick the rascals out of our lives. Let them sit and stew with those crazy mullahs. They have quite a few of their own. Obama already has enough on his hands.

Your gloating over Obama's win is predictable, but its negative impact on Israel remain wishful thinking. The relationship between the two nations transcends the individuals. Most of American Jews voted for Obama, and many of Obama's key campaign strategists were Jewish, as are many of the staffers. Joe Biden no doubt is keeping his sights on 2016. It is true that in the beginning Obama tried flirting with the Arab world, but that didn't get him anywhere, as were his efforts to get the Israeli-Palestinian track going. With Iranian issue looming strongly, Syria in utter chaos, and Muslim Brothers ruling in Egypt, the 2 leaders may even increase the level of communication, if anything. As both leaders have said numerous times, the fundamentals of strategic cooperation between Israel and US are stronger and deeper than ever.

Additionally, it is not unreasonable to think that Obama's feeling and views on the Arab-Israeli conflict have undergone some transformation after witnessing the wholesale murder of civilians in Syria and the inhumanity and cruelty taking place across much of the Arab world. He certainly did not hesitate taking out OBL, or employing aerial assassinations on the scale that would give the IDF envy. When Netanyahu called with congratulations, this was entirely correct, and what was expected for the leader who appreciated much what was done for his nation's security.

The way I see it Mr Netanyahu is the supplicant (or at least should be) if relations are sour it is entirely his fault, after all the US gains nothing from the relationship - Israel is the only beneficiary - and Netanyahu severely overplayed his hand by entreating Obama with a list of demands and expecting quick compliance.

Since so many pro-Israel supporters bankrolled Romney I sincerely hope this means that for the first time in a generation no sitting US president is obligated to show fealty to Israel.

It's funny how a small thing like Obama NOT going to war with Iran, and everyone thinks he stood up to the big bad Israeli lobby. The truth is, we couldn't go to war with Iran now, and neither can Israel. It was just talk to see how much more Israel can get out of the USA in the mean time. Israel is stalling until Iran's allies in the region fall (Hezbollah and the Assad Regime).

Please do not forget that Obama didn't say a word about the Gaza/Israeli war when around 1,500 Palestinians were killed (2/3rds of them were civilians). Not one word to Israel about their clear excessive use of force.

Do not forget that the Obama Administration has pledged more money in military assistance to Israel than any other American administration in history.

Meanwhile, Israel is still building settlements, and has made absolutely no progress on working towards a peace agreement.

Now, I don't want you to misunderstand my position. I am not some nut that wants Israel to vanish. Everyone deserves a homeland to call their own, and the Jewish people are no different. Aside from that, I've always maintained my position that the Arabs share equal blame for what's happening.

I just can't stand when everyone says that Obama rose above the Israeli influence, he didn't, and he will still be held by the Israeli lobby shackles in the coming term....but only time will tell for sure.

I think the only request of Netanyahu towards Obama was to make clear the 'red line' concerning producing the atomic bomb. I can't understand the shock this has caused so many bloggers here.Experts say that if Sadam Hussein had been given a 'red line' under Bush (senior)he would not have attacked Kuwait. 'Red lines' can prevent misunderstandings.
The world powers need to take out the Iranian reactors; Russia even shares a border with Iran.The Iranians have sent and sponsored Islamic terrorists throughout the world. If one of these terror groups gets its hand on a small nuclear device it could be exploded anywhere in the world not just in Tel Aviv.In fact it will be easier to smuggle one to the UK or the USA than to Israel -so let us stop kidding ourselves its just an Israeli problem!

Obama does NOT seem to have the mettle and reolve needed to engage Israel/Zionism and their allies and agents in the USA into open war to liberate the USA from their influence.
However to be fair to the man the inevitable coming battle can only be engaged with American over whelming public support and can only be won with consistent clear headed objective exposure and curtailment of undue disproportionate influences that harm the USA while making certain in the process of NOT turning it into an anti Jew war.

Following is an excerpt from an address delivered by Egyptian cleric Sheik Abdallah Badr at a rally at Tahrir Square, which was posted on the Internet on November 9, 2012.

Abdallah Badr: All of you can see what is happening today to America. Our wanton TV channels and corrupt newspapers portray what is happening in America as if it were a natural phenomenon. But I say loud and clear that the wind inflicted upon America, [Hurricane] Sandy, is one of the soldiers of Allah.

You should go to that website and listen to him speak in his native language. Hearing his passion will help you understand precisely how very much the US has to gain from her support for Israel and how much she has to lose if Islam wins the battle for Palestine.

Ever since the Obama address at Cairo University Israel and Netanyahu have been on tender hooks fearing a substantial Arab-American rapprochement and on the war path against President Obama.
NOT for anything he said or did ( The Cairo U speech was no more than a rehash of American platitudes though couched in "warmer "words) BUT for what he may say or do.
Their war strategy ranged from the publicly insulting (declaration of further Settlements activities in East Jerusalem during Biden visit) to the concerted long term ceaseless indirect denigration vilification AND direct in the open marshalling of internal American forces (The Congress AIPAC & Associates USA Media) that followed the USA/Obama call for a FREEZE on settlement activities into an anti USA/Obama campaign of unprecedented openness leading to a shamefully hasty USA/Obama climb down.
The truly crucial test of will and of American sovereignty over its ME policies was the Iran-A Bomb issue.
Israel/AIPAC/NETANYAHU forced the USA to live for more than a whole year under the Diocletian sword of Presidential elections black mail .by constantly threatening to launch a war on Iran into which the USA/Obama will be dragged against its will and better judgement; an intensecampaign cleverly frustratedby Obama with a mixtue of sanctions and above and under the table political machinations.Thia may turn out to be the most severe blow ever dealt by the USA to the Zionist lobby and may well mark the first step in the long road of America's resumption of its senior partner status in Middle East affairs.
The Obama Administration have been living since day one under constant Israeli/AIPAC threats and intimidation culminating into outright black mail since day one a state of affairs that gravely infringed on and violated American sovereignty.
That the USA has been compelled to tow UNDER DURESS the Israeli line to the extent it did for as long as it did will certainly remain in the mind of the American ruling establishment ( both Democrat and Republican) for quite some time to come and may well mark a turning point in Israeli/American relations.
That the USA

Explain to me Mr.Omar Ibrahim if AIPAC is so powerful why could it not persuade 76% of Jewish votes to vote AGAINST Obama and for Romney who you perceive to be more pro Israel.
Or maybe this whole AIPAC "controling America" bullshit is just so much crap dreamed up by the Arab Lobby to demonise and delegitimise it.
The truth is there are hundreds of lobby groups in America including the very powerful Saudi Arabian Oil lobby that is filled with ex executive officers of the US government. Believe me this is the 'mother' of lobby groups.

Because while most Jewish Americans do not blindly support Israeli policy a rabid minority represented in AIPAC does. And that in turn leads to Jewish members of congress being pressured and coerced into doing AIPAC bidding in signing statements against the president, Jewish members of media, Dersowitz, Abe Foxman and the ADL; they are all powerful antagonists that Obama would normally count on for support. The power of AIPAC and its assorted members have far more power and influence integrated into American politics, intelligentsia, and wealthy elite than any other ethnic/lobbying group.

Should the figure you cite(76%) be correct it would mean that most American Jews are keenly aware of what the influence of AIPAC will ultimately lead to and that 76% of American Jews vote as Americans and NOT as Israeli/AIPAC agents That is good news if true

Anything Obama does will be considered as betraying Israel by conservatives. Even if he takes a M16 and goes kill children in Gaza by himself, they will still say he's throwing the regime under the bus.

Hm, given that the ultra orthodox parties are basically demanding to be draft dodging welfare queens, what pray tell should that mean for his "support"? What does it mean for evangelicals and conservatives in the US to support them?

Because the American public understand that Israel is at the fore front in the defence of Western values against the onslaught of Islamic fanaticism and shares the same values of democracy and tolerance towards ALL religions.

There can be no peace negotiations if the Palestinians believe that in a two-state solution they have the right to return to the Israeli part. This has almost 95% support of Israel Jews. If Mahmoud Abbas accepts this, everyting else is up for negotiations -including Jerusalem. Unfortunately he is already back tracking on what he has said because of the huge criticism and calls that he is a traitor; which in the Arab World is tantamount to the death sentence. This is why there are no moderates and no compromises amongst the Arabs.
The "perceived " danger of an Atomic Iran on the Israeli side is quite reasonable as they have threatened to wipe Israel off the map on a number of occasions. If Iran does go nuclear it will mean that the Sunni Arab world will soon follow. Whoever believes that it is only Israel that would be threatened by this is living in a fools paradise.
It will definitely not be in the interest of the USA that this is so - nor the interests of Russia or China that have huge restless Moslem populations.

One cannot but wonder at the kind of people who request others to forgo and give up their legitimate inalienable rights in their own homeland legacy and homes.
What kind of people are these and what kind of moral standards do they uphold?
And what kind of world do they envisage and seek?
How many of them would forgo their own homelands and homes for political expediency which amounts in this case to surrendering to conquest hoodlums and usurpers?
Should their request reflect a certain "moral/legal standard...is that the standard they want for the world to be ruled by?
And what kind of world would that BE?
Or is that a "special" request to accommodate a "special" people?
Do they or do they not know that a world built on "political expediency" that condones and forgives aggression and rewards usurpation will be far more vile unjust and savage than the present world?
Palestinian struggle for the LIBERATION of Palestine that will ultimately triumph with the support of all people of good will and good faith all over the world will go down in history as the battle that truly buried both colonialism and imperialism...it will be the precedent that will deter the powers from further aggression and violation of human rights..it is in the last analysis the last and most durable bulwark against rapacious imperialism and savage racism and international hooliganism.
It is now and will be for centuries to come the road map to a just and equitable world that would restrain neocolonialism/ Zionism/Imperialism and all the live and dormant evil powers from underestimating the will of "small" people and quashing them with brutal power as if left unbridled and unchecked they are apt to

diemm you must be totally ignorant of the geography of the land.
The Israelis are "expanding" on the West Bank - this area they would withdraw from in a two-state solution.
In fact diemm why don't you learn about the topic then you wouldn't show your abject ignorance.But I suppose I could say that about most of the bloggers here.

omar ibrahim what do you think of the slaughter of innocent civillians by moslem gangs in Syria and in Iraq and in Egypt and in Pakistan and in Sudan and in about every part of the world where Moslems live? Are the Israelis responsible for them too? Funny your lot doesn't say a word about them.
Your silence is DEAFENING ; your hypocrisy is SICKENING.

The bloody ongoing in Arab countries are more than tragic and what you construe as a DEAFENING SILENCE is a figment of your imagination but mostly of wishful thinking.
ALL that you cite are the source of very grave concern by ALL and are the subject of intense private discussions and debate and of public demonstrations where ever that is possible.
The syndrome however is note worthy that a moderate amount knowledge of recent Arab history ( and of nations in a state of flux) will make it understandable to you if you care to understand though such ongoings are certainly unacceptable to us.
The Arab nation is still in a state of flux and indecision; it is still groping for its way forward an effort hampered by serious differences between substantial internal forces which are battling obsolete regimes and each other while simultaneously combating foreign powers and influences with their ceaseless interference and their resident agents .
We are still at the stage of formulating a dominant public consensus on which way to go and how; an effort that whenever it promises bearing fruit is frustrated by direct and indirect severe foreign intervention and outright aggression as for the plantation of Israel in Palestine and the recent American conquest and destruction of Iraq.
Deep internal conflicting/competing forces plus ceaseless foreign intervention have hitherto frustrated all serous attempts at formulating our road map for the future.
The situation now is not unlike Spain's revolution/counter revolution stage of the 30s or
Russia ‘s in the 1916s/17s which witnessed in both intense national discords and extremely violent birth pangs and severe pains.
Re your direct question:
" Are the Israelis(Zionism/Israel will fit better here than Israelis) responsible for them too? "
The answer is YES though not solely but certainly PRIMARILY both directly and indirectly.

Direct results of the implantation of Israel in Palestine:
a-The DISLOCATION DISPOSSESSION DISFRANCHISEMENT and SUBJUGATION of a whole people from and in his homeland ( an act of unprecedented criminality in modern times) apart from constituting a major human tragedy lead to the creation of a very large mass of wretched and deprived Palestinians who with their Arab brethren formed the vanguard of revolutionary movements and revolutionaries battling:
i- the internal conditions that allowed the success of the Zionist/Jewish colonialist conquest.
ii- The Zionist-Judeo/Christian alliance that empowered the conquering and usurping ALIENS
b-Intensified Palestinian then Arab then Moslem consciousness of their utter defenselessness against and vulnerability to Judeo/Christian unrelenting neocolonialist/imperialist designs and ambitions of regional domination and exploitation .
c-The advent of an ALIEN hostile power (in collusion and alliance with departing colonialist powers) into the region guided by a racist and imperialist doctrine: Zionism which necessarily and rightly prioritized military defense and liberation concerns over other vital concerns.
d- The implantation into the region of a constant resident hostile threat to national security at the service of departing colonials as witnessed by the British/French/Israeli alliance against Egypt in 1956
Indirect Results of the Implantation of Israel in Palestine:
a-Total disenchantment with the so called international community which not only supported he that promised others’ homeland to ALIENS but equally failed to implement its own related resolutions : The Partition of Palestine and The Right of Return .
b-Rejection of the Judeo/Christian West as a possible progress partner
c-Prioritization of national and cultural self preservation and self defense considerations to fight back an unmistakable Judeo/Christian attempt at de Arabizing and de Islamizing the region for better to dominate and exploit it.
d- Deferral to secondary consideration basic issues of human rights social and economic progress and public power sharing.
Your direcr questionquoted above is not unlike the query of how much did the implantation of cancerous cells affect an already weak body groping for a safer and healthier life.

omar ibrahim so much blah, blah. The Arab World is corrupt and immoral.When the West doen't need your oil anymore you will all go back to your camels and no one will give a toss how many women you stone because of Sharia law.
You hate the Zionists not because of the Palestinians but because the Jews show you all up. Look what they have achieved in 50 years. Look at the Arab contries - all those Moslems fleeing for a better life in Europe! What have the Moslem world exported hate, hate and more hate.
Omar Ibrahim watch your oil carefully; time is not on your side.

If this senseless outburst (actuall two) makes you happy that is OK by me.
You certainly do not want to understand( which I expected)and your vacuous replies which studiously avoids any meaningful exchange by replying to concrete points I make only confirms what we have consistently taken you for :looters happy in the loot/colonialists and usurupers

If you mean the ultra orthodox should not be given welfare and should have to work for a living, then I agree with you.

Of course the way the ultra orthodox dress and act (impractical clothing and so on) and their lack of any military training (they dodge military service in the IDF) means that "war" is not going to happen - I supsect that if they tried to violently resist the end of their welfare benefits, they would trip over their own beards.

There is, of course, a vast difference between the Orthodox and the various groups of "ultra orthodox".

Orthodox Jews do have a birthrate that maintains or expands the population (surely a good thing not a bad thing), but they work for a living and they risk their lives in the IDF.

It would be ironic wouldn't it? If they did resort to armed conflict (but more realistically domestic turmoil -- they are already making life miserable for non orthodox) that would make IDF dodging a tad illogical.

At some point, being the majority, they will have no one to purloin subsidy from and no one else to enter the military.

Remember - vast difference between the orthodox, who work and serve, and the ultra orthodox - who do not.

Well some of the the ultra orthodox do not work and serve in the IDF - you seem there are various factions and......

It all gets complicated - Paul's head hurts.

Israel is becomming a more religious country - socialism having failed (decades ago) people are looking for a substitute for "The God That Failed" and God Himself looks like a good substitute.

But it is not just the Jews who are tending to become more religous (although Orthodox - rather than ultra Orthodox).

Muslims are getting more religious - hence the rise of Hamas and other Muslim Brotherhood organizations.

Christians?

There are few Christians left - Christian Arab towns are now Muslim Arab towns.

The Islamists pretend tolerance - and push the Christian Arabs out(although they trot a few in front of the television cameras now and then).

Jews now regard Christians as allies - but have some misconceptions about Christians.

For example, "I have a Christian comming to stay, I must get some pork for him to eat" seems to a be a common thought.

Very tolerant - and well meant.

But we do eat other things.....

More interestingly there is an increasing interest in the past - the good side of the British Mandate period.

The British period is, quite rightly, traditionally held to be horrific - because of the denial of entry of millions of Jews (breaking the British promise of a National Home) which lead to the horrible deaths of these people. Almost needless to say there was no real effort to limit Arab immigration in the 1920s and 1930s (and there was a vast amount of that).

However, the buildings were nicer in the British period - a lot of the post World War II stuff is just concrete and glass boxes (same as everywhere - the post World War II building styles were a failure, we were told we would grow to love Modernism, but most people simply did not).

And many important enterprises were created - such as the power and light company (whose old H.Q. I visited in Hafia) and the Dead Sea sulpher company and .......

It was not the British who took over these Jewish business enterprises - and it was not even the forces of Islam that destroyed most of them.

It was Jewish Labour governments - they used regulations to bankrupt companies they did not like, and then nationalized them.

There has been strong move against these state owned enterprises in recent years - although (as everywhere) the return to private ownership has not been clean (there has been cronyism).

The cooperative and communes continue to decline - because they simply do not tend to work very well.

It it was not for the terrible dispute with Islam (for which I have no solution), Israel would mostly likely develop into a Jewish version of Texas.

Hafia would be sort of like Austin (liberal Texas - but still Texas) and other parts more religious style Texas.

The difference would be - more coast in relation to land area than Texas.

Like California - but more so. In no part of Israel is one more than a couple of hours from the sea.

Even in Britain that simply is not so - and for people who love the sea (as I do) that is important.

I'll be at pains to say that I don't care if you're Orthodox or not, but if you're a member of a nation, you work for it and should be willing to fight and die for it, especially if other able bodied members are expected to undergo national service. I can best sum this up as, "No Mollycoddlers".

I can't really say people are more religious -- tribal yes and the cultural identifiers of religious affiliation make for easy markers of tribe. This is perhaps another trend, where one über ideology doesn't seem to hold, so people gravitate to what seems to offer security. The next generation will, perhaps, chafe at the swing and go the other way.

Religion is different in Israel - walking about one finds things, or encounters names.

Even many children from atheist households become religous (that does not tend to happen in Europe or the United States) although Judaism is inwardly looking faith. Unlike both Christianity and Islam Judaism rarely thinks in terms of conversions (indeed Orthodox Jews go out of their way to make it difficult to convert "keep out of our club"?)

As a libertarian I oppose conscription - but ultra orthodox men doing nothing but study the Torah and living off the state is just plain weird.

On the military question - as I say I oppose conscription, but there is a moral obligation to serve (at least I think so).

Especially in a country were an enemy thrust could cut the place in two in a couple of hours.

Israel can not afford to lose battles.

There is no time to train people - they all have to know what they need to do in advance.

"Shunning" might be a libertarian alternative to conscription - not talking to people (or interacting with them) who refuse to serve.

Shunning might be a problem if the group in question wants to isolate themselves from you, or tell you what to do because they don't approve of what you are doing, which seems to be the largest grievance of non ultras in Israel. It will all come down to numbers and attitudes.

I understand that to not serve in the IDF has a large number of economic consequences already. For the most part, all able bodied people must learn to fight and patrol for country, whether one agrees to combat positions is a separate issue.

In terms of the US, I take the attitude that all civilians should have to do a term of national service. The simple reason is there is a large problem when the bulk of the population doesn't have to really deal with the consequence of war, especially in the well to do classes. Make em all do boot camp, KP and guard duty, and hump gear thru mud ditches for a few months with a broad mixture of the rest of the population.

An isolated pacifist community of Jews should be allowed - although I do not think the Islamists would spare their lives (and more than the Romans spared the lives of the Essenes).

As for the idea that American leaders should not decide on war unless they have had experience - that sounds a bit "Starship Troopers" to me (although that does automatically mean that your idea is a bad one - it is not a bad book). Sadly people tend to demand this - and then ignore their own demand.

Much in the way that the media denounced Bush "what do you know of war - you just spent some time flying jets in Texas" - but then igored the fact that John McCain knew more of the horror of war than most people alive (having spent years being tortured by the Communists in North Vietnam) and supported Barack Obama (a man whose entire life has been one of comfort, expensive private school, then string pulling to get him into Occidental, Columbia and Harvard Law because his grades were too poor to get in on merit) who has no military experience whatever.

If people were even handed - and demanded that both parties candidates have experience of the horrors of war, I could understand it. But it is only one side (the Republicans) who get attacked on this by the media.

Still you have a point - I must admit that I felt uncomfortable with Mitt Romney having spent the years of the Vietnam war in France. France in the mid to late 1960s was a wonderful place (although that insane blow up in Paris in 1968 showed there was intellectual decay behind the curtain), but the son of Governor George Romney should have shown responsbility to his country when his country was at war.

A nice idea. The US increases pressure on Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program and Netanyahu makes sincere efforts to find a just deal on a two state solution. A couple of problems. Many of Netanyahu’s allies, and maybe Netanyahu himself, have serious religious problems with giving up territory. In addition, many of Netanyahu’s allies, and Netanyahu himself, just do not want to give up territory and want the Palestinians to conveniently disappear from Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem. Netanyahu has already done an excellent job of making Palestinians, as people, invisible to most Israelis. In the meantime, he has focused Israelis’ attention on Iran. What Peace Movement?
For a variety of reasons the Palestinians lack the ability / resources / organization / cohesiveness / will to really focus on a deal with Israel. And, by the way, Hamas has some very dangerous people in its leadership who would lose power if a deal was struck with Israel. Let us not forget Hezbollah. Even if Iran agreed a deal on nuclear weapons, there is no reason to think Hezbollah would stop attacking Israel. After all, hating Israel is pretty much Hezbollah’s raison d’etre.

1. It is insane to give up territory. "If you keep doign what what you have been doing" you may have heard, "you keep getting what you have been getting." The Israelis gave up Gaza. They got suicide bombers and missiles. You think they should do that again?

They gave up the Sinai. Now Mubarak is gone, the Brotherhood is in, and the value of the treaty is exactly zero. Egypt has the territory; Israel has a huge problem on its border.

2. The leader of Hamas has stated repeatedly that he will give up not one inch to Israel: "not one inch". Special Dispatches - No. 3080
Hamas Leader Mahmoud Al-Zahhar: Our Plan For This Stage Is To Establish A Palestinian State Without Recognizing Israel and Without Giving Up The Right Of Return; Our Ultimate Plan Is To Have Palestine In Its Entirety
URL: http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4429.htm - July 06, 2010

Iran's "perceived" nuclear threat. The Iranian bases are being built, the Iranian leadership (not just the Iranian President) call for the extermination of Israel - and the Economist magazine talks of a "perceived" threat.

The real "bad bet" the Israel Prime Minster made was to trust the United States and not attack the Iranian nuclear bases. Of course the peace loving Economist magazine gives the Prime Minister no credit for not attacking - on the contrary you remain committed to driving him from office as part of your wider agenda.

As for the "peace process", as Economist magazine people know perfectly well - "peace" to an Islamist means "submission to Allah". Yet the Economist writes as if some other sort of peace was seriously off offer. The only logical conclusion is that like George Soros (and the others who fund "liberal" groups dedicated to the destruction of Israel - in the name of "peace") and the other "international community", "world governance" and "responsibility to protect" types, the agenda of the Economist magazine is the destruction of Israel. Because, like the majority of the British establishment since the 1920s (Winston Churchill and other pro Jewish figures were always a minority), you believe that an anti Jewish policy will create peace between the West and Islam - you are mistaken, it will not. All Jews could be exterminated tomorrow and Islam and the West would still be in conflict.

As for those Americans who demand that Israel should "stand on its own feet" - well I am sitting in Israel right now, and everyone I meet is happy to do just that. And for those modern Herbert Samuels (the Jewish British official who broke the promise of a National Home for the Jewish people in the Holy Land, whilst doing nothing about Arab immigration, thus leaving millions of Jews to be murdered in Europe).

Well Herbert Samuel appointed an Islamist murderer to be Grand Mufti (against the wishes of moderate Muslims) - the alliance of this Grand Mufti with such people as a Adolf Hitler was inevitable, but Jews survived both. And Israel will survive "J Street" and all the other Obama supporters who have sold out in return for Soros money. You, and the Economist magazine, can do your worse - Israel will still exist long after you are gone.

Basically you are saying that anyone who criticizes Israeli policy is a racist who wants the destruction of Israel. Thanks for your input. Many of us here in the U.S. are waiting for the day Washington gives you the boot and makes you fend for yourself instead of leeching off my tax dollar.

So Obama supporters have "sold out"... this mentality you have is exactly the problem. It is you who is racist who thinks some sky daddy made you superior to the rest of us. You clearly demonstrate that you want this country to put Israel above its own self-interest. Even the Iranians have never threatened to kill Israelis in particularly - their comments have been aimed at your government.

I can't stand the propaganda you just posted, and I'm on the other side of the world. No wonder Iran doesn't like you. They have to live right next to you.

The entire world right now has more or less a negative view of Israel. Obviously, the problem is with your policy and your apartheid state. Grow up and fix your character. The liberals are winning in America, and as we progress and get more and more educated, the evangelicals are just going to get old and die out. Learn to fight your own battles because you will have to sooner or later.

I have never taken a cent from the American taxpayer - not even when I was working for the United States.

Nor am I an Israeli. I am British.

As for "critizes Israeli policy" - if you had bothered to read my post you would see I attacked Israeli policy myself. Specifically the failure to attack the Iranian nuclear bases whilst they are still not operational. The judgement of the Israeil Prime Minister to trust in the United States i.e. NOT to "fight your own battles" may prove fatal.

As for you comments that I am "racist" and that Israel is an "apartheid state" - I see no reason to take moral lectures from a coward who will not even type under his own name. So much for "character" - something you clearly lack.

However, you are quite correct that the socialists (who you dishonestly call "liberals") are winning in the United States. The "eduction" speak of (which is basically Frankfurt School propaganda) has seen to that.

This is why the United States will soon be utterly bankrupt (as will the rest of the West - including Britain).

If it was just you (and your fellow "liberals") unable to find a job and begging in the street it would not be a problem (after all that is exactly what you deserve) - but the majority of human beings who will suffer are innocent.

Paul Marks - you seem to inhabit some paranoid construct where you believe that liberals hanker for the destuction of Israel - possibly you need some rest and relaxation and more importantly perspective in order to realise that loving peace is not a bad place to start.

After this you may wish to ponder that you would have no country without the support of the rest of the world and it was the palestinians who suffered for this aim. Israel is awash with money and weapons thanks to the charity of other countries and yet you seem to think that by accepting this for decades you are now free to determine your own future. How naive. The dog wags the tail not vice versa. And stop entertaining ideas that by not committing an international crime your government deserves credit. Iran likes to rattle a few cages with its feisty rhetoric, I am sure with your 'character' you can deal with it

I am British not Israeli (although I visit the land - indeed I am just back from Israel).

Moves such as the violent removal of Jewish settlers in Gaza by the IDF (i.e. a mostly Jewish force, the IDF does have some Christian and Muslim soldiers but it is mostly Jewish, using vilence against Jews) are "rewarded" by thousands of rockets being fired from now "Jew free" Gaza into Israel.

The Islmamists do not want peace whatever the Israeli does. They never did want peace - Jewish communities were attacked and wiped out even back in the First World War, and the Grand Mufti (appointed back the 1920s - by a, Jewish, British official desperate to try and make friends with the Islamists, yes Herbert Samuel was that stupid) was an ally of Adolf Hitler and wished Jews to be exterminated not just in the Holy Land but everywhere (he even visited the Death Camps).

Jews were the largest ethnic group in Jerusalem even as far back as 1890. And those who savagely limited Jewish immigration in the 1920s and 1930s (thus leading to millions of Jews dying in the gas chambers) did nothing to prevent Arab immigration to the British Mandate - or did you not know that most (although far from all) "Palestinians" were immigrants themselves?

And the vast majority of what was the British Mandate is under Muslim rule - it called "Jordan" (the old Trans Jordan). You will not find many Jews there. Most of "Palestine" is under Muslim rule.

Many Muslim Arabs also live in Israel (and they worship freely and have the vote) - contrary to what you have been taught it was the Muslim Arab leaders (not the "evil Jews") who called opon the Arabs to leave. Crimes were committed by Jews against Arabs - but vastly greater crimes were committed against Jews by Muslims (in the Holy Land and all over the Middle East).

There are more Muslim Arabs in Israel (as full citizens) than there are Jews left in the entire Middle East outside Israel.

You say that Israel should not get government aid.

I AGREE with you - and have often said so.

Nor should the Muslim Arabs in Gaza (or anywhere else) get government aid - from the United Nations or any other taxpayer funded body.

When various Arab nations expelled their Jewish populations (and there were mass killings and rapes even in the 19th century - long before the state of Israel existed) these Jews (who are also Arab by "race") were intergrated into Israel.

The Arabs who left Israel in 1948 (who were TOLD to leave Israel by the various Muslim leaders) have been left to rot in camps (now more like concrete suburbs) all over the Middle East.

The oil rich Arabs left their own "brothers and sisters" to rot - as a POLITICAL STATEMENT, they did not want them to intergrate into the various Arab nations.

Each day they are told that they will return and exterminate the Jews. And even the "moderate" "Palestinian Authority" that runs the "West Bank" (a lot of which is closer to the sea than it is to the Jordan river) teaches in its schools and broadcasts on its Arabic television that the Jews should be driven into the sea.

"None of my business" - fair enough Mr Jones, then stay out of it. You have no friends or relatives in the area - it is none of your affair.

No taxpayer money - for either side.

P.S. stop calling American socialists "liberals". We both know that American "liberals" are not exactly fans of Grover Cleveland or Gladstone - they are far more likely to be fans of college "critical theory" and other developments of the Frankfurt School.

Re: "Israel is an aparthheid state". In fact, Israel's CITIZENRY is 20 percent Arab, some of whom sit in Parliament, while the Arab states surroundign Israel, and often levelling the aparthied charge, are themselves apartheid. After the Israeli War of Independence, these states expelled as many Jews as there were "Palestinian" refugees. Today Egypt is slaughtering Coptic Christians. You cannot even bring a bible into Saudi Arabia.

Indeed there are more Arabs, as full citizens, in Israel than there are Jews left in the entire Middle East outside Israel.

The Islamists have also made it very clear that they intend to crush Christians all over the Middle East - i.e. destroy the Christian population in the area where the Christian religion was born.

Those Americans who are saying "what is any of this to do with me?" forget that Islamists have GLOBEL desires. There is most likely a branch of CAIR (or some other Muslim Brotherhood front) not far from where the "it is nothing to do with me" person lives.

Only a few years ago people in Europe would have laughed at the idea that there could ever be an Islamic threat in modern times "that ended at Vienna in 1683" was the mocking response. But most people are not laughing now, the Islamist threat is not some thing from the past - it is very much the present and the future.

"Why should I care about Europe" comes the American isolationist response - again the threat is much closer to you than you believe. For example, what are your own children being taught about Islam at school? Are they being taught it is a "religion of peace" and other such nonsense?

Christianity was driven out of the government schools many decades ago, why is pro Islam stuff being taught? Taught in the name of "tolerance" and "cultural studies" and "criticial theory" and.......

And to the claim "we just want the young people to read all points of view" how many works by Robert Spencer (or other writers opposed to Islam) are on the reading lists?

It never ceases to amaze me that the contributions to the campaigns by foreign interests is never mentioned, as they CAIR lobby in Washington, funded by the Saudis, is never mentioned. The only influence ever mentioned is Jewish money, as if Arab oil money were non-existant. In fact, it is oil and the need of all of Europe for oil, that determines which side Europe supports in this battle between Islam and the Infidel; Europe is now so dependent upon Russia for oil that it sides with the Islamists. It will live to regret the choice.

My comment was clear and was directed towards this article and what was mentioned in it.

However, I must say that your comment on Oil, Europe, Russia, Arab money (by the way, there are more than 20 Arab countries and only a few have oil), Infidels and Islamists didn't make sense. Especially, the fact that you said that Europe supports the Islamists because of its dependency on Russian energy, although there is currently huge opposition and sometimes fight in the Arab world itself against the Islamists makes your comment quite irrational, non-realistic, unlinked by any means and as a result, FLAWED.

Anyways, I respect your point of view and appreciate your contribution to this discussion.